Seems to be a direct correlation with goods & services that are highly subsidized. There is a major shortage of childcare providers in my state. We have the highest costs in the US. So that one, at least here, is primarily driven by scarcity.

So goods and services bought and sold in the free market are cheaper... And those heavily regulated and subsidized by government are increasingly expensive... and it's capitalism's fault. Of course!

Of course, as chart is for capitalists state, not just a state. State that always act in the interests of ruling class.
And for ruling class best idea is to establish monopolies (including state monopolies) and rise margins on things people can not live without.

Considering "free market", of course someone can dream about turning things back, but rules of capitalism work here perfectly. Open list of US manufacturers of blue colored categories in 70s, and do same now. Funny isn't it? "Free market" somehow killed almost all of them, and most remaining ones become bigger and merged with countless other firms (local or not).

I am not very interested in political debate on a filmmaking forum, but I just commented to maybe help you see that it is not capitalism per say at fault here. The great con I believe was convincing people that capitalism wants a unregulated "free" market, as surely the big fish benefit more from greater government control of the economy (so long as they influence the government). This collusion between government and the ruling class/elite/etc can exist in any economic or political system, which is why I happen to believe the less power the government has in the economic sphere the better.

I am not very interested in political debate on a filmmaking forum, but I just commented to maybe help you see that it is not capitalism per say at fault here.

Let me explain. All economic topics here are intended only for providing useful data, bit of knowledge, and for rising opinions to knowledge. So, every new piece of knowledge(!) in welcome. My response is not debate, it is just few basics that had been known for even 19th century economists, intended only to help you.

The great con I believe was convincing people that capitalism wants a unregulated "free" market, as surely the big fish benefit more from greater government control of the economy (so long as they influence the government).

I do not see any con here. All that you wrote is observation how one of the capitalism laws work.
Forming of big players and later monopolies is normal for capitalism. Monopolies allow to obtain highest profits.
But idea to make time going backwards and return to early capitalism with lots of small firms is just stupid . In modern times idea is used by large corporations to distract petty bourgeoisie or make them vote for some "libertarian" guys, make them some wet unreal dream, in other words.

This collusion between government and the ruling class/elite/etc can exist in any economic or political system, which is why I happen to believe the less power the government has in the economic sphere the better.

Such thing as collision between government and emerging(!) ruling class happens only during revolutions (I mean collision, and not temporary tactic disagreement on how to shave sheep better). Whole definition of ruling class means that this class rules and state (and government as element of the state) is just tool of this ruling.